Critics of the various restrictions on DDT use often claim that DDT is a God-sent chemical that nearly eradicated malaria from the world (absolutely untrue) and which was banned only because of hysteria caused by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring (untrue at both ends, hysteria and the power of Carson’s book). This is history revisionism at its worst, it is bogus history.

A careful study of the history of the use of DDT shows that scientists were concerned about its dangers from the first uses as a pesticide. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported dangers in a press release on August 22, 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan ended World War II (VJ Day was August 15 in Tokyo, August 14 in Washington). In that release FWS noted the beneficial uses of DDT to fight insect and lice infestations that threatened troops and civilians with typhus and other diseases, but cautioned that such use should not become common, that more study was needed:

Praising DDT as an outstanding scientific achievement and a very valuable tool, Dr. Clarence Cottam, Director of Wildlife Research of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said that “caution in its use is esssential because of our incomplete knowledge of its action on many living things, both harmful and beneficial.

“Its use by the armed forces in Europe and the Pacific in killing disease-carrying insects was so effective and the need so urgent that its effects on other organisms had to be overlooked. Present information is based largely on single applications of DDT spray. The effects of repeated applications are little known.”

FWS had good reason for concern. Their tests had already shown DDT could kill waterfowl, which started the agency on a long quest for alternatives to DDT spraying of estuaries and swamps, in order to protect migratory waterfowl and the ecosystems that maintain their habitat.

Teachers can use these documents for document-based questions (DBQ) and exercises. Students can track the history of the ban of DDT through this one series of press releases, or supplement projects they may propose on DDT and its effects.

Policy makers and concernedcitizens will notice that in these releases are direct refutations of claims made by pseudo-science groups such as JunkScience.com, that the 1927 EPA ban on most uses of DDT was not fully considered, not based on long-term research, or not based on research at all. These releases directly refute claims that DDT was not found harmful to birds and other wildlife.

The entire press release collection appears below, as FWS presents it at their site — all the links should work directly (let me know if you have problems). [While the table pasted in neatly originally, after posting I discovered the press release titles are being cut off — if you have a solution, holler; I’m working on it]

My mom found out she had breast cancer 6 years ago even though no one in my family has ever had cancer of any kind. She survived but has long term affects of cancer-chemo related brain dementia. If I could prove that the government or any government related agency knew about the long term effects of DDT and pushed it underneath the rug. My mom would be a very rich woman.

Should we be surprised it’s not included in the press release, since the study was published 15 years after the release? That’s one of the points I’m making here: Milloy claims the ban on DDT was rash, hasty and not supported by evidence. This is research 27 years before the DDT ban, showing why a ban on DDT would be a good idea.

That study you cite does not conclude that other factors are involved. It does corroborate the claim that DDT was the chief culprit in the precipitous thinning of eggshells after DDT was introduced into the raptors’ diets in the wild.

But let us assume there are other factors involved: Vilifred Pareto noted that 20% of the causes create 80% of the trouble. DDT is the biggest villain, and reducing its use has provided huge benefits. Can we track down the other sources? Let’s do it. In the meantime, DDT still is indicted and convicted, and gets no time off for good behavior, since there is none.

And while we’re at it, did you bother to read the conclusions of that FWS release?

Our contaminant monitoring program in Region 7 has been one of the most thorough ever, even for a species as well studied as the peregrine falcon. With data collected during this program, we were able to monitor the major threat to this species (DDT), and we were able to base our reclassification decisions (delisting of the Arctic peregrine falcon and the American peregrine falcon) on very detailed and scientifically credible data. As the FWS considers implementing post-delisting monitoring plans, we will be developing a contaminant monitoring program similar to the one we conducted in Alaska for lower 48 States’ peregrine populations.

FWS thought this program a success, showing that when DDE levels dropped low enough, reproductive success of the raptors helped make a case for delisting the species from the endangered list. A triumph of science and politics and policy, really.

Mr Darrell, raptors feature prominently in the press releases but I’ll bet the following from the FWS isn’t included:

“Analysis of eggs collected during these three periods showed a clear downward trend of DDE concentrations in eggs. In the late 1960s, DDE residues in the range of 20-40 ppm (parts per million) and eggshell thinning in excess of 20 percent were observed for peregrine falcons in Alaska (Peakall et. al 1975). Peakall (1976) reported that DDE residues in eggs in the range of 15 to 20 ppm would likely result in a declining peregrine falcon population. By 1995, DDE levels had declined to 2 to 3 ppm. Eggshell thickness also increased following the 1972 restrictions on DDT, although this increase appears to have leveled off at about 10 to 12 percent thinner than pre-DDT levels. Although current egg shells are still thinner than pre-DDT levels, reproductive success has been good. We are unsure why, with continuing declines in DDE, egg shell thickness has not continued to improve. We will continue to investigate other possible causes, including other contaminants.”

So other unknown factors are involved in egg shell thinning. Since these factors are unknown, it’s impossible to know what bearing they have on egg shell thinning. Perhaps they, and not DDT, are totally responsible for the thinning.

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted. Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required)(Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Dead Link?

We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!